The Common Ills

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Other Items (that 'tedious' Iraq War)

First off, Democracy Now! features an Asian-American voice. Linda Jue. If you've been paying attention this year or read Liang's column in Polly's Brew Sunday, you know how rare that has become for the show that has increasingly defined "race in America" as Black and White (or, as some argue, as Black and Jewish White). Juan Gonzalez is again hosting today so consider making time to check the broadcast out.

Let's turn to columns which we rarely note. Background, years ago, during the initial second wave of the Women's Liberation Movement, there were outlets that refused to let female reporters cover the movement, that claimed that women couldn't be objective. The same thing happened following Roe v. Wade with regards to abortion coverage. If you want to know what was supposedly feared in terms of lack of objectivity, look no further than Bob Herbert's latest incoherent nonsense entitled "Can Obama Run the Offense?". Now most of us are aware Herbert made a mini-'name' for himself (and interested the Times to begin with) by demonizing African-Americans (primarily African-American males) while working at The New York Daily News. If he thinks his work on behalf of the bi-racial blunder changes that past or makes up for it, he is sadly mistaken.

If the Times thinks he contributes a column, they are sadly mistaken. Before we go further, it should be noted that (at best) Gail Collins and Maureen Dowd went out of their way to demonstrate (repeatedly!) that they were not bound by any internal, self-ruling to support other women. Herbert's felt no need to assert any 'independence.' And, of course, no one has ever expected it from him. Because in American society, it's always the worst to be the "girl."

Here's Herbert attempting (yet again) to ride to Barack's rescue (opening paragraph):

Let's see if I've got this straight, Barack Obama is a United States senator, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his party's candidate for president of the United States -- and yet it was somehow presumptuous of him to meet with foreign leaders last week during his trip to the Middle East and Europe.

First, Barack is the "presumed" or "presumptive" candidate. Until the convention, there is no candidate. Try sticking to the facts. "Meet with foreign leaders"? Yeah, he looks like a complete strutting ass going to Europe to meet with leaders and there's a reason for that -- one Herbert never commented on in real time.

Keven Rudd, Australia's Prime Minister, visited the United States and attempted to meet with front runner candidates (as well as visit the White House) face-to-face. Which front runner couldn't be bothered? That would be Barack Obama. Australia has a long, long historic relationship with the US. Sadly, those ties led Australia into the illegal war (though former prime minister John Howard didn't need a great deal of prodding). But Barack didn't have time for Kevin Rudd. A prime minister elected with the hope that he would end Australia's involvement in the Iraq War. A person hailed as a "change" leader. And Barack was just too damn busy?

Herbert might try leaving his bubble in NYC and interacting with the world. This community has a ton of Australian members and they found it offensive -- they found a great deal offensive. Barack issued a press release and couldn't get John Curtin's name correct (a huge insult in Australia). Barack made a few minutes (20) time for a phone call to Rudd while Hillary broke from campaigning to meet with Rudd face-to-face for twice that amount of time. I'm real sorry that Bob Herbert is so terminally ignorant but there's no reason to punish readers for that fact.

Herbert wants to know what's so bad about "a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee" traveling the globe to meet with leaders? Because it was a campaign stunt and because it was campaign stunts that have prevented Barack from doing the job he's supposed to do as a first-term senator.

Katie Couric interviewed Barack for the CBS Evening News (as Herbert knows, he gets his digs in) and Ava and I felt she should have pressed Barack further on Afghanistan:

Couric's follow up question should have been, "You're saying that Afghanistan is something the full Senate committee should address and you're touting Afghanistan as 'the central front in the war on terror.' Well on January 31st, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Afghanistan, heard testimony from the State Dept.'s Richard Boucher and you didn't attend that hearing. Do you think now you should have been at the hearing?"
We're sure Barack would have tried to weasel out with the claim that he was debating Hillary in Los Angeles. Yes, that night. The hearing started at 9:30 a.m. EST. With a three hour time difference between the East Coast and the West Coast and a 'new' thing called "airplanes," there was no reason for him to skip the hearing.
While the hearing was going on, Barack was speaking at the Trade Technical Community College -- which was only one of his many campaign stops that day. We do not agree with a 'war on terror,' nor do we claim that Afghanistan needs more US troops or more war. But Barack claims that . . . now. What did he say about 'ready on day one isn't enough, you have to be right on day one'? On January 31st when Afghanistan was the issue of the committee he 'serves' on, he thought it was more important to visit community colleges and drum up votes than to focus on what he calls 'the central front in the war on terror.'

Barack couldn't be bothered on Januray 31st. Bob Herbert will go on to lament the housing crisis, et al, in his column. He will write, "Americans are losing jobs, losing the equity in their homes, losing their retirement nest eggs, and tragically, in increasing numbers, actually losing the family home itself." And exactly how is that addressed with Barack traipsing the globe? These aren't new developments and of course, one of Barack's initial sell-outs as US Senator was to side with the banking industry and make it more difficult for citizens to declare bankruptcy. Barack's also got big money backing him that is tied to the current crimes. And "current" needs to be clarified. These aren't new developments. Barack's not addressed them. And he can't address them on a whirlwind European and MidEast tour. [July 18th, Bill Moyers Journal (here for transcript) did the strongest report on the housing crimes of any American outlet so far.]

Herbert's column is so pathetic that he tries to drag Rev. Jesse Jackson into it -- or rather, tries to drag Rev. Jackson through the mud. Yes, he's allegedly writing about Barack's summer trip but he's got to go back to an already dead topic. (Or maybe he still has a need to trash African-American males? That would explain his love for Barack.)

His love affair is so intense that he's even willing to disown his past work regarding Iraq and to trash the topic of the illegal war as he furiously scribbles: "And for all the tedious talk about timelines and what the surge in Iraq has or has not accomplished, the top three issues in this campaign are still the economy, the economy and the economy." Oh look, Bob Herbert has spliced James Carville and Tim Russert into one person ("It's the economy, stupid" meets "Florida, Florida, Florida!"). It's 2008 and we're getting tired crap -- recycled from 1992 and 2000 -- from Bob Herbert?

"All the tedious talk about timelines"? The Iraq War has gone on for five years now. I'm really sorry that Bob Herbert's Dream Lover can't answer a damn question; however, the people have a right to know about timelines and the 'surge.' It's too bad that Bob Herbert has sold out whatever tiny bit of integrity he had to whine that Iraq is a distraction. He really is pathetic and his column today is a horrid piece that not only lacks style or grace, it lacks coherent thought. Paul Krugman's been advised to focus on the economy before. Maybe Bob Herbert needs to be advised to focus on the topic he was hired to cover -- and, no, it wasn't national political races.

Columnists? Reading the New York Times' news section, you may be reminded of another columnist. Specifically Norman Solomon. Solomon once billed himself as a media critic but that really doesn't fly now that he's a delegate for Barack. The reality is that Solomon's as bad as Herbert about dusting off old columns each year and trying to call them "new." Around 2006, Solomon was no longer of any use to Iraq. As most will remember, he could go storm any outlet to plead for a reporter while forgetting that Ehren Watada was the story and Ehren was facing a court-martial. Norman was so devoted to the female reporter that some joked he was showing up on CB radio to plead her case. (The reporter might be asked to testify at Watada's court-martial and -- horror! -- if asked, she might have to decide whether she should testify or shouldn't! She couldn't say what she'd do. But she wanted the whole world to be outraged for her. As did Norman.)

Thom Shanker contributes "Air Force Plans Altered Role in Iraq" -- the air war. Which has been ongoing and which -- as during Vietnam -- will only increase. Fear of draw-downs in the number of US troops stationed in Iraq (which the Air Force agrees will happen), plans are made to increase the fly-overs and the bombings. And, guess what, "technical advisors" (remember Barack's 'plan' leaves those behind)? They'll be calling in air strikes. In fact, that's presented as a 'good' thing. "General North," Shanker writes, "dismissed that concern, saying that only United States or allied air controllers would be allowed to call in airstrikes from Americans or allied fighters and bombers. These restrictions would be part of a program to limit accidental civilian casualties should bombing play a larger role in the months ahead, commanders say." Limit casualties? Before Norman got hitched to Barack, he could have a field day with that laughable concept. Shanekr went to the "air operations center" but signed "a written agreement" which forbids him from naming "the base" or revealing its location. A lot of good minds going to waste trying to prop up a man. Maybe it's so disgusting to feminists because we long ago stopped seeing it as our life's goal to stroke the male ego? Luckily for Barack, handmaiden has become a gender neutral job.

Unluckily for Iraq, two who could be counted on to provide some much needed perspective and reality on the Iraq War have gone AWOL in order to prop up a War Hawk candidate. If there's any good to be found from Bob Herbert's public ditherings, it's that Norman Solomon is no longer the man who has embarrassed himself the most due to a crush on Barack. It's now Herbert. (We're not factoring in idiots like Tom-Tom who never possessed an ounce of intellectual heft. We're talking about strong minds and Norman and Bob Herbert were once of the two of the strongest when it came to taking on the Iraq War.) Solomon could grab Shanker's report and produce a blistering column. But he's a Barack Groupie these days and so many of them, like Bob Herbert, find talk of timelines for withdrawal "tedious." Find discussing the 'surge' "tedious."

Once upon a time, Bob Herbert and Norman Solomon grasped that if they didn't hit hard on the Iraq War, few would and the spin would take hold. It wasn't "tedious" back then. The 'surge' didn't work. Was never going to work. Because Barack couldn't say those words to Katie Couric, because he instead pushed the notion that it had worked, Barack's groupies no longer feel 'vested' in addressing the topic. It's all so 'tedious.' Funny thing is that US forces haven't left Iraq and many US families and Iraqi families would find the use of "tedious" to scoff at discussing timelines for withdrawal to be flat out offensive. But screw Iraqis, screw US service members, Bob Herbert's got a lover man to get into the White House.

Susan notes this from Team Nader:

Is Nader/Gonzalez for Real?

Posted by The Nader Team on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 11:22:00 AM

ShareThis

Is Nader/Gonzalez for real?

The country wants to know.

Will Nader/Gonzalez be on enough ballots in November to make a run for it?

And to be seriously considered for the Presidential debates?

We're now on 18 state ballots, heading toward 30 by August 10 - on our way to our ultimate goal of 45 states by September 20.

And getting to thirty won't happen unless we hit our goal of $100,000 by August 10. (Which would give us $2 million for the entire campaign year to date.)

Thanks to you, we're at over $13,000 in just a few short days.

But we need to jack it up this week.

Donate now and watch your contribution fuel our road-trippers all around the country.

On the ground, things are heating up and the press is starting to take notice.

In West Virginia, we turned in more than 24,000 signatures (15,000 valid required).

In Montana, our road trip team collected and turned in more than 10,000 signatures (5,000 required).

We've also collected enough signatures to get on the ballot in Tennessee and New Jersey.

In Missouri, today we will turn in more than 20,000 signatures (10,000 valid required).

This coming week, we're looking forward to ballot access victories in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wyoming.

None of this would have been possible without your help.

Every time you hit the contribute button, you fuel this historic ballot access drive.

During our last two fundraising drives, you came through with flying colors.

First, we asked for $60,000. You did it - on time.

Then we asked for $70,000, and you pushed us over the top with time to spare.

Right now, we need to hit $100,000 to get us to 30 states.

These are the most crucial two weeks of the campaign.

Whether Nader/Gonzalez is for real in November depends on whether we can raise the money to pay for ballot access over the next two weeks.

Plain and simple.

So, please.

Donate now whatever you can - $10, $20, $100, $500 - to help us give America a choice in November.

For peace.

For justice.

For a safe and healthy future.

For shifting the power from the corporations, back into the hands of the people.

Together, we are making a difference.

Onward

The Nader Team

P.S. Thanks to all who participated in Saturday's house parties. They were a great success.

Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.

ShareThis

And Kyle asks that we don't miss posting this from Team Nader:

Nader on Greider, Hightower and Kuttner

Posted by The Nader Team on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 09:47:00 AM

ShareThis

Nader on Greider, Hightower and Kuttner .

Dear Bill Greider, Jim Hightower, and Bob Kuttner:

I write this letter of inquiry out of respect and wonderment to my three friends whose progressive writings over the past generation have been second to none in the community of public intellectuals.

You write cogently - as if people matter first, as if responsive elections, politics and government are critical for a resourceful society that is functionally and institutionally dedicated to the pursuit of justice.

There is one exception to the above generalization with which I have direct familiarity.

In your recent writings and interviews, where you have had pertinent and relevant opportunity to inform your audiences, you declare your dissatisfaction with the two major parties and their leaders over specific issues and records of evasions and neglect.

But you make no mention of the Nader/Gonzalez campaign and its policies that are square on with your positions.

You ignore the areas of action and engagement we are representing or furthering and that McCain and Obama either oppose or ignore.

We're not inferring any endorsements here - just pointing out candidates who are reflecting your kind of political and economic advocacy.

My question is this:

If, year after year, the two major parties oppose or ignore our policy prescriptions, and often facilitate making conditions worse for the people, how do you propose to jump start or spark some movement inside the presidential electoral arena?

You and most of your policy colleagues, whether they write, speak, interview or conduct conferences, almost never choose to recognize or mention the positions and records very similar to yours that were taken, or are being taken, inside the presidential electoral arena by Nader/Camejo (2004) or Nader/Gonzalez (2008).

There are times during interviews on television or radio when the comment or question thrown out at you begs for some mention that someone out there, whom you have known for a long time, is contrasting and challenging the two party "elected" dictatorship that defiantly excludes or marginalizes competition - through state ballot laws and closed debates (a serious civil liberties issue, if nothing else).

The corporate Democrats who control the Party know that they will not be taken to task by the leading writers and polemicists of the progressive community in a way that will discomfort them - i.e. pointing out that their voters can avail themselves of other options on the ballot.

Is there any other language that they understand inside the electoral process?

It is as if your predecessors in the nineteenth century spoke out for abolition, suffrage, labor and farmer empowerment without mentioning or recognizing the existence of those small parties and independent candidates who pioneered, along with parallel civic movements, those great social justice advances we now take for granted.

None of these political candidates ever won a national election, but active speakers, writers, and conveners did not treat them as non-persons.

A very few of your colleagues are beginning to write about the number three presidential and vice presidential candidates in this race. (In Wimbledon or the NCAA tournament, the number 60th seed or team is given a chance to play.)

They realize what an effort it takes just to place one's candidacy on the playing field of a rigged system.

You should empathize enough to cover us on the road after Labor Day.

One journalist - Chris Hedges - found his breaking point and has written columns supporting our campaign.

What is your breaking point in this context?

Is that a valid question to ask as our country is being driven into the ground and its global corporations are tearing at its heart and soul?

Have you ever visited our websites in 2004 and 2008 - voternader.org?

I know about the uni-directional jackhammer nature of Washington's opinion oligopoly.

What I have difficulty understanding is what is its antonym in the progressive media when it comes to reporting and commenting about those who are contending inside the electoral arena?

I look forward to your considered response.

In the meantime, all of us at the Nader/Gonzalez campaign continue to absorb and value your insights and proposals but with a growing sense of puzzlement over the missing gap.

Sincerely yours,

Ralph Nader

P.S. Look at the near blackout nationally of the indictments this month brought by the Pennsylvania Attorney General against state Democratic legislators and legislative aides using government time and taxpayer money to move against electoral and political opponents, including removing Nader/Camejo from the ballot during the 2004 presidential campaign. It was headline news in Pennsylvania but nationally, even the civil liberties groups were not moved. Without candidate rights, how valuable are voter rights in a gerrymandered nation?

ShareThis

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq

juan gonzalez

pbs

That 'working' 'surge'

Wearing their flowing black garments, they can carry hidden explosives past most checkpoints because customs of modesty prevent male guards from frisking them. On Monday, four female suicide bombers in two Iraqi cities used this tactic to enter areas defended by hundreds of soldiers and police officers.

The above is the opening of Sudarsan Raghavan's "Four Women Kill Dozens In Suicide Blasts in Iraq: Kurdish Protest Hit in Kirkuk; Shiites Targeted in Baghdad" (Washington Post)and the focus is on the the bombings in Baghdad and the bombing in Kirkuk. As for women, maybe now is a good time to ask why the US government thought it was okay to pay female "Awakening" Council members 20% less than their male counterparts? But that question will probably never be explored. You'll note that many outlets (CNN among them) are tacking on the female "Awakening" Council members angle to this story -- but no one seems to mention (let alone question) the fact that they're being paid 20% less. (For the record, this community does not support putting thugs on the payroll. We are noting that the US government is sending a strong -- and bad -- message when they pay Iraqi women 20% less for the same job.) Like the Post, the New York Times front pages the bombings via Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Sabrina Tavernise's "Bombers and Ethnic Clashes Kill 61 in Iraq" which really focuses more on Kirkuk and part of the reason for that may be due to what followed the bombing in Kirkuk:

No one claimed responsibility for the bombing, which bore the hallmarks of Sunni Arab extremists. Nonetheless, many in the crowd blamed Turkmen extremists for the attack, and within minutes a mob of enraged Kurds began attacking Turkmen political offices and setting their buildings ablaze.
"They burned Turkmen buildings and they burned many cars," said Brig. Burhan Taha of the Kirkuk police.
Gunfire and rocks from the mob wounded at least 25 Turkmen guards, according to the Kirkuk police. The guards -- some armed with machine guns -- returned fire, killing at least 12 Kurds in the mob. An additional 102 people were wounded in the melee that followed the bombing, the police said, though it was not clear how many were shot by Turkmen guards or wounded by other violence.
Another senior Kirkuk police commander, Brig. Sarhad Qadir, said the mob that attacked the Turkmens included members of the Asaish, a Kurdish security force, who were not in uniform but were carrying weapons.

Iraqi MP Saadeddin Arkej is quoted stating, "I can't practice democracy at the Parliament while the dictatorship is attacking and burning the headquarters of the Turkmen Front in Kirkuk and burning and looting other Turkmen establishments." Tavernise and Oppel also note that the province's governor has requested United Nations troops on the ground.

In both Baghdad and Kirkuk, fingers were pointed. Baghdad may have seen retaliation violence aimed at those perceived to be responsible; however, Baghdad violence is so common that it's rarely of interest to reporters these days (or columnists -- hold on for the next entry) and it's also true that an attack on Shi'ite Pilgrims that enraged the Shi'ite controlled city of Baghdad would most likely result in retaliation that was kept 'underground'. (In other words, corpses found two or three days from now -- or maybe a mass grave in a few months.) Caesar Ahmed and Ned Parker's "Bombings kill dozens in Baghdad, Kirkuk" (Los Angeles Times):

Ordinary residents in Kirkuk worried about the aftermath of Monday's bombing and mob violence. "Today's events will create a big crisis. A solution for the Kirkuk issue must be found," said Burhan Shirko Qadir, a Kurdish merchant.
Turkmens were seething. Turkmen Front local leader Nazhat Abdul-Ghani said four party members had been wounded and seven others kidnapped.
"Today the Kirkuk issue took a dangerous turn," said Jankeez Yousif, a Turkmen who works in the oil industry. He bitterly criticized Iraqi security forces in the city, which he accused of being an extension of the Kurdish political parties -- a common complaint voiced by groups in the north. All sides blamed outsiders for carrying out the bombing.
In Baghdad, militants turned their attention to the country's Shiite majority. Three female suicide bombers blew themselves up over the course of an hour, targeting Shiite faithful on their way to a sacred shrine. At least 32 people were killed and 102 wounded. About a million Shiites were expected for the event commemorating the death in 799 of a religious leader regarded by Shiites as a saint.

Dean Yates and Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) place the death toll of the bombings at 58 and the number wounded at 250. The New York Times places the death toll at 61 and the wounded at 238.

Micah notes this new video from the Ralph Nader presidential campaign.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq

the los angeles times

caesar ahmed

Monday, July 28, 2008

Iraq snapshot

Monday, July 28, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military says "WOOPSIE!" for two incidents where civilians were killed, Sister Barack bombs at the NOW convention, The Nation magazine continues to struggle with the concept of journalism (surprising absolutely no one) and more.

Starting with war resistance. Friday evening, a protest was held outside Fort Carson in Colorado to show support for US war resister Robin Long, extradited from Canada, and now awaiting the US military's decision on what happens next. KKTV (link has text and video) reported on the protest live.

David Nancarrow: He joined the army in 2003 now 25-year-old Robin Long will answer to military officials after he made a choice not to join his unit in Iraq. Thanks for joining us tonight. I'm David Nancarrow.

Michelle Molison: And I'm Michelle Molison. Robin Long flees to Canada just as his unit is being deployed to Iraq.

David Nancarrow: AWOL for three years, Long was deported from Canada and sent back to the US just last week. This the first time since the Vietnam era. KKTV's news reporter Eric Lupher joins us live at Fort Carson tonight and, Eric, Long has plenty of supporters saying he had the right to make the decision he made.

Eric Lupher: His support comes from a local activist group who was out earlier today in protest claiming that Long didn't know what he was getting into when he joined the service but others feel the exact opposite, saying 'If you're going to join the military during wartime, you better be prepared to go to war."

Col B. Shannon Davis: We join military service to fight our nation's wars. When you join and you sign up, you know that right up front.

Eric Lupher: This group disagrees.

Garrett Reppenhagen: There's a huge propaganda smear across the country to get young men to join the military.

Eric Lupher: Garrett Reppenhagen, along with other members, supporters -- young and old from the Pikes Peak Justice Peace Commission stand in protest at Alamo Square Park.

[Unidentified male demonstrating in support of Robin]: At the end of the day, you know, we really feel that Robin should be free.

Eric Lupher: Free from the military from the war Robin Long never wanted to fight.

Lee Zaslofsky: Robin Long did what he did because of his conscience and because he believed that the war was wrong, that he was simply running away or hiding out.

Eric Lupher: But according to Col B. Shannon Davis, the requirements of service are clear from the very beginning.

Col B. Shannon Davis: There should be no reservations when you take the oath of office to protect your country and fight for your country.

Eric Lupher: But Long's supporters refuse to give up, refuse to believe the war in Iraq is justified.

Lee Zaslofsky: I think most Americans now realize that the war in Iraq is a complete mistake.

Eric Lupher: So they protest.

Col B. Shannon Davis:They're exercising the freedoms of this country tonight and I'm not going to put them down for that. That's their freedom, that's what I fight for them to have those freedoms.

Eric Lupher: Long will likely go to court-martial. Now Fort Carson is hesitant to tell us what penalty is ahead of him. Now Long's attorney [James Branum] tells us that his client could spend years in prison and, worse case, face death. David and Michelle?

David Nancarrow: Alright Eric Lupher live for us at Fort Carson tonight. Thanks very much.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.

Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Turning to Iraq. Over the weekend Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) reported that the pipeline between northern Iraq and Turkey is pumping oil at a "more than tenfold" increase from 2007 and, oh, by the way, US forces patrol the pipeline. Additionally, Tavernise noted (in her final paragraph), "Also on Friday, the American military acknowledged that it unintentionally killed the son of an editor for an American-financed newspaper in the northern city of Kirkuk on Thursday. The military said soldiers had been fired at from a taxi and shot back, hitting Arkan al-Naiemi, 14, in the taxi." Consider it starting a trend. June 25th snapshot: "Reuters notes the US military shot dead 2 'suspects' in Samara and they shot dead 3 people in a car 'near Baghdad airport'. On the 3 in Baghdad, Doug Smith (Los Angeles Times) reports, 'Officials at Yarmouk Hospital identified the dead as a manager and two female employees of a bank at the airport. Iraqi police also reported that two bodyguards were injured' while the US military maintains they were attacked by the bank employees." Sunday Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reported that the US military has admitted the three slaughtered were civilians and not, as they LIED in June, criminals. There's an apology tacked on in there but it's not going over with the son of the bank manager. Mohammed Hafeth "said the image of his father's burning vehicle haunts him. He'd waited in his father's office that morning surprised that he wasn't there yet. They'd left at nearly the same time that morning." Fadel reports Mohammed learned of the shooting and arrived on the scene to find the car on fire and being told by US soldiers that he had to leave. He asks Fadel, "Why did they kill him like this? We demand that they send those soliders to an Iraqi and American court." The family turned down an offer of $10,000 from the US military. Today Sudarsan Raghavan and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) note that the family wants a written apology and quote Mohammed stating, "It was only $10,000. My father was the main provider for our family. We are a displace people. We also have to replace our car. We are in a very difficult time." Richard A. Oppel Jr. (New York Times) observes that "the findings call into question the way the military handled the aftermath of the shootings" and quotes Lt Col Steve Stover stating, "We don't believe there was any cover-up." Saif Hameed and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) remind, "Initially, some soldiers thought that someone in the car was shooting and that Iraqi police had found a weapon in the vehicle, the miltiary said. However, no weapon was found and the passengers turned out to be a man and two women who worked at the airport bank." Iraqi police had found a weapon? Thought that. And then waived the vehilce through a checkpoint? Really?

Hameed and Parker also note that multiple bombings struck Baghdad today: "Early today, 20 civilians were killed and 47 wounded by three female suicide bombers in eastern Baghdad as Shiite pilgrims marched to the Imam Kadhim shrine in west Baghdad, an Interior Ministry official said. The attacks happened a day before a religious festival marking the death of the revered Shiite figure, who died in 799." Earlier, Mohammed Abbas (Reusters) reported 24 dead from 3 Baghdad bombings (all three bombngs are said to have been female suicide bombers). Nicholas Spangler and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report 24 dead in Baghdad with sixty-seven injured. Camilla Hall (Bloomberg News) points out those figures are the ones being used by Jalal Talabani, Iraq's president, in a message he left on his political party's website and that he noted the dead includes women and children. The Telegraph of London explains, "The pilgrims were walking through the Karrada district of central Baghdad, towards Kadhimiyah in the city's north where up to a million people will celebrate a Shia festival, when the bombers struck." The Australian notes, "The bombers struck in quick succession in the Karrada district of central Baghdad as tens of thousands of Shia pilgrims were making their way on foot towards Kadhimiyah in the north of the Iraqi capital, site of today's Shia festival, a ceremony that has been marred by bloodshed in the past." "Thousands of Shi'ite Muslims walk through this popular shopping district here in Baghdad, mournful religious sermons blare from speakers set up to greet them," Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson (NPR's All Things Considered) explains from "less than two miles" where the three Baghdad bombings took place. Hussein Kahim (McClatchy) notes Baghdad has imposed a ban on cars from five a.m. tomorrow through five a.m. Wednesday. CNN places the death toll at 32 with one-hundred and two people wounded.

It was not the only major bombing today. North of Baghdad in the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, it was politics, rather than religion, that drew a suicide bomber this morning," Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson offered on NPR's All Things Considered. Washington Post's Sudarsan Raghavan (filing at the Financial Times) notes the Kirkuk bombing (also said to be a 'female suicide bomber') and states that nothing suggests the Baghdad bombings and the Kirkuk bombing were connected. China's Xinhua cites Birg Burhan Wasif (Kirkuk police chief) as the source for stating that the bomber was a male and, using the police figures, state 22 people died and one-hundred and eighty-seven were injured as they protested the bill on provincial elections. (The one that the Kurds walked out on the vote of and that Iraq's Presidential Council has already rejected.) CBS and AP explain, "Kurdish objections over a proposed power-sharing formula on the provincial council in Kirkuk have blocked the law from being passed. Kirkuk is in an oil-rich area and many Kurds consider it to be part of their historical land. The area is home to Kurds, Turkomen, Arabs and smaller groups." CNN reports that Kirkuk has a ban on vehicle and pedestrian traffic ("from 3 p.m. Monday until 7 a.m. Tuesday") and places the death toll at 38. In other reported violence today . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Balad Ruz roadside bombing claimed 4 lives.

Shootings?

Reuters notes 1 woman shot dead in Mosul, 1 man shot dead in Mosul.

Corpses?

Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mosul and 1 corpse ("handcuffed woman with a gunshot wound to the chest").

In other news, Katharine Euphrat (AP) reports that the VA's suicide prevention hotline (1-800-873-TALK) has received requests for assistance from over 22,000 veterans. The statistics are from the government and the government also states that they have prevented 1,221 veterans' suicides.

Turning to the US presidential race. Thank The Nation for us noting the first item. It's been covered. But when Air Berman thinks he can lie and The Nation wants to let him, we have to cover it. Thursday Barack Obama was in Germany. He was scheduled to meet with wounded US service members there. He cancelled. He had a host of excuses and the one he finally stuck with was that the Pentagon said no. Air Berman runs with that and whines, "The Obama campaign scrapped the troop visit after the Pentagon told them it would be viewed as a campaign event." There is no hope for Air Berman. He is not a journalist, he never will be. He wants to be a Mac Daddy but that'll never happen either. Reality broke in the real media Friday evening/night. Air ignores that -- by choice. His candidate is more important to him than the truth. Dan Balz (Washington Post) reported, "The Pentagon said Friday that it did no prevent an Obama visit" and quoted Pentagon flack Bryan Whitman stating, "Nobody denied Senator Obama the opportunity to visit our wounded being cared for at Landstuhl. Obviously, as a sitting senator, he has an interest in that and certainly visit in an official capacity." Dan Balz or Air Berman, who you gonna trust? Exactly. So little Ari whines Barack was forced to do it because the Pentagon said what was planned was a campaign event! Ari, you no doubt know of Maj Gen Scott Gration (Barack advisor). Caren Bohan (Reuters) quoted him Friday evening stating, "Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event". Barack cancelled the event. He did so when the Pentagon informed he could not use it as a photo op. They didn't tell his campaign the visit couldn't happen, they walked the campaign through what was allowed and what wasn't. All the adoring press? Nope. When he found out he wouldn't be able to use wounded GIs as cheap props in campaign photos, he blew off the scheduled visit and went to his hotel to work out. That's reality. CNN quoting Whitman, "We do have certain policy guidelines for political campaigns and elections. And what is appropriate and what is not appropriate in those situations. But the Pentagon certainly did not tell the senator that he could not visit Landstuhl." As Trina noted Friday, "Usually everyone lies for him. But the Pentagon's not going to do that for him and now he's exposed as the man who decided to skip out on wounded service members after he was informed he couldn't turn it into a campaign stop. If a tree falls in the forest when no one is around, did it make a sound? If Barack emotes with no cameras around, he thinks it won't make for a media sound-byte. So it was okay for him to blow off US soldiers. How disgusting is he?" And how disgusting is Ari Berman that he wants to show up on Monday and LIE and how disgusting is The Nation that they go along with it? Pretty disgusting but the Campus Marxist King went from Katrina's coffee-fetcher to Barack's official campaign blogger and regularly brags he can get anything planted in The Nation. Apparently so. Air Berman creates a conspiracy and then traces it back to the White House ("the Bush Administration intervened to block Obama's planned visit"). Now I know that there really aren't any brains at the top of The Nation but when you start allowing your staff to create their own rumors and print them as fact, you've hit a new low. Air 'quotes' MSNBC but doesn't link, I believe it may be to this and Domenico Montanaro added an update: "One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama's representatives were told, 'he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers. Obama could nto bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama's visit." Barack Obama is the presumped and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. John McCain is the same for the GOP. McCain appeared on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos yesterday (transcript here) and George Steph asked him about the cancelled visit.

John McCain: Well, I know this, that those troops would have loved to have seen him. And I know of no Pentagon regulation that would have prevented him from going there -- without the media and the press and all of the associated people -- nothing that I know of would have kept him from visiting those wounded troops. And they are gravely wounded, many of them.

George Stephanopoulos: He's done it many times in the past.

John McCain: In Landstuhl, Germany, when I went through, I visited -- I visited the hospital. But the important thing is that, if I had been told by the Pentagon that I couldn't visit those troops, and I was there and wanted to be there, I guarantee you, there would have been a seismic event. And so, I believe he had the opportunity to go without the media. And I'll let the facts speak for themselves.

US News & World Reports points out that Whatever Happened to Baby Jane Senator Claire McCaskill stumbled onto the set of Fox News Sunday to rail against an ad that McCain's running by bleating out, "The most disappointing thing about this ad is that it's beneath John MCain, because he's playing political football with wounded soldiers." No, Claire, drop the 40 proof vodka long enough to grasp "the most disappointing thing" is that Saint Barack bailed on wounded service members when he found out it couldn't be a photo-op. (For other 'disappointing things about this,' look in the mirror, Claire.) Juliet Eilperin (Washington Post) notes that Diebold's own Chuckie Hagal took to CBS' Face The Nation where he roared (in his best Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?), "I think John is treading on some very thin ground here when he" cutting him off because Chuckie didn't have his facts. That's the US Senate for you, they wake up and drink harder all day than the rest of us. Knock another back, Chuckie. As usual when Bambi gets anything but soft gloves and feather kisses, the campaign whines (and then usually screams "racism!"). Tommy Vietor -- who's been the Agnes Gooch to Barack's Mame for far too long -- whines to Eilperin, "I think a lot of people are wondering what happened to the civil campaign John McCain said he was going to run." Agnes Vietor whines a lot to the press -- click here for the whining to Alexander Cockburn in 2006. Note that the article was published in 2006 -- before Alex drank the Kool-Aid and peed it all over himself in public.

Ava and I covered the travelogue and Barack's alarming statements (alarming to those who played fool or were fools) re: Iraq, Syria, Israel and more. We will come back to that later in the week but for now check out Katie Couric's interview with Barack (CBS Evening News -- links has video and transcript). Now we're turning to Peggy Simpson's report (WMC) on the NOW convention (July 18-20) which took place in Bethesda and featured Marie Cocco, Patricia Ireland, Carol Jenkins, Carolyn Maloney, Irshad Manji, Monica Aleman and others. Simpson reports NOW president Kim Gandy announced to one and all that "sister" (I'm being sarcastic) Barack sends greetings. From prison, Kim? Do we need to mount a Free Barack action? He sends his greetings? That lousy pig who used sexism non-stop sends his greetings? Let's drop back to June, to Katharine Q. Seelye and Julie Bosman (New York Times) reporting on the media finally maybe noticing the sexism targeted at Hillary:

In response, the Obama campaign directed a reporter to Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida who supported [Ms.] Clinton but who is now speaking for the Obama campaign. She said Mr. Obama had no specific plans for a speech on sexism, partly because he already incorporated themes of discrimination as a societal problem in his speeches.

No specific plans -- now or ever. He could travel all over the globe but he couldn't show up for the NOW convention? No feminist wants to hear his garbage. Which is obvious from Simpson's report. She notes that Gandy's message from Sister Barack resulted in "a minor ripple of applause." Simpson focuses on one organizer who spoke to the conference, Jehmu "Green spoke last weekend at the national NOW convention, one that was subdued rather than boisterous, in the wake of Hillary Clinton's primary defeat by Barack Obama. Some NOW delegates wore Hillary tee-shirts. There was minimal talk of Obama and loud cheers whenever someone mentioned Clinton." She quotes Green explaining, "We increased [women's] turnout by 200 percent in the [Democratic] primaries -- gosh, we came really close to nominating Hillary. . . I also was disheartened when I saw young women vilify Senator Clinton and vilify being a feminist."

To The Contrary's Bonnie Erbe (US News & World Reports) explains, "Obama draws an adoring crowd of 200,000 in Berlin. He pulls ahead in national polls. Meanwhile, McCain, who has run a near-disastrous campaign, inches up in key swing states? Go figure. I say, give Obama the guitar he so richly deserves and make him a rock star. Give McCain a war to run somewhere. And let voters redo the primaries so they can nominate two more mainstream candidates. Anyone who says the election is over and Obama is the victor reminds me of the Obama partisans drumming Sen. Hillary Clinton out of the race and turning off millions of potential Democratic supporters in the process. They do their candidate a much greater service if they duct-tape their mouths." On the Berlin event, Just Say No Deal issues this statement: "While coverage of Senator Obama's Berlin speech provided audiences here at home nothing less than a visual 'shock and awe,' it neglected to mention that the well-hyped speech had an opening act: a gratis concert by two wildly popular groups, Reggae artist Patrice and rock band Reamonn (pictured below with Barack Obama). While we appreciate the Obama Campaign's hospitality, on behalf of furthering US-Germany relations, offering free bratwurst, pizza and even beer for three hours during the free rock concert, we question whether or not the monies might have been better spent here on financially strapped US citizens. Similarly, back on May 20, 2008 in Portland, Oregon, Senator Obama took the stage following the critically acclaimed local band The Decemerists, who gave a rare free concert for 75,000 fans. While news stories generated by both appearances focused on the enormity of the crowd size, few mentioned the accompanying perks, leaving some to question whether revelers are showing up for Senator Obama or for free food and entertainment. Without this additional information, Just Say No Deal contends that Americans are being misled about the presumptive Democratic nominee's true popularity." Let's just add to that the fact that there are dangers in handing out free beer that go beyond driving after. All in Germany who received free beer better have been at least 21-years of age (unless Barack's claiming a nationality other than US). Doubt it? In 2002, a US House Rep just knew he would be the new Minority Leader (the Dems were in the minority then). He could taste it. His base was different than Nancy Pelosi's and he didn't think she was all that. What deralied him? In 1992, he gave out free beer to 3 males -- two were 16 and one was 17. It was a campaign 'action.' (Suburbs had been blockwalked, consider this an after-party.) He was repeatedly warned that he needed to stop but, hey, he was in Congress, he'll do what he damn well wants. He did at approximately 4:00 p.m. The 'after-party' took place at his family's business on a busy, downtown corner. The 'after-party' took place in the parking lot. Photos were taken. For over ten years, he never gave it a second thought. Then he wanted to be Minority Leader. Funny how things can surface when you least expect it. Like photos of you and a bunch of male teenagers pulling back on long necks in broad daylight. (And that, by the way, is the real story on how Nancy Pelosi ended up Minority Leader -- now Speaker of the House. You won't find it in the New York Times or the Washington Post but that is how the only real competition was cleared from the field.)

Team Nader notes:

Is Nader/Gonzalez for real?

The country wants to know.

Will Nader/Gonzalez be on enough ballots in November to make a run for it?

And to be seriously considered for the Presidential debates?

We're now on 18 state ballots, heading toward 30 by August 10 - on our way to our ultimate goal of 45 states by September 20.

And getting to thirty won't happen unless we hit our goal of $100,000 by August 10. (Which would give us $2 million for the entire campaign year to date.)

Thanks to you, we're at over $13,000 in just a few short days.

But we need to jack it up this week.

Donate now and watch your contribution fuel our road-trippers all around the country.

On the ground, things are heating up and the press is starting to take notice.

In West Virginia, we turned in more than 24,000 signatures (15,000 valid required).

In Montana, our road trip team collected and turned in more than 10,000 signatures (5,000 required).

We've also collected enough signatures to get on the ballot in Tennessee and New Jersey.

In Missouri, today we will turn in more than 20,000 signatures (10,000 valid required).

This coming week, we're looking forward to ballot access victories in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wyoming.

None of this would have been possible without your help.

Every time you hit the contribute button, you fuel this historic ballot access drive.

During our last two fundraising drives, you came through with flying colors.